Remembering Mubarak: Tahrir, Zuccotti, & Future Democracy

Tahrir Square, 8 February 2011 (Photo: Wikipedia)

Today marks the two-year anniversary of Hosni Mubarak’s departure. At the end of 2011, Time’s Person of the Year was “The Protester,” and the issue was wrapped in Tahrir Square. Ironically, the following year (2012) the honor went to freshly-elected President Mohamed Morsi. In 2013, will “The Protester” win again?

A Startling Revolution

Seemingly out of nowhere, perhaps awakened by their Tunisian neighbors, Egyptians stormed the streets of Cairo in stupefying numbers to occupy “Liberation Square.” On February 11, 2011, less than three weeks later, Mubarak’s 30-year dictatorship ended in equally amazing fashion.

The same Egyptians no doubt inspired Occupy Wall Street and other “Occupy” movements, from London to Oakland to Sydney. After two years of nearly constant protests, despite concessions from one regime and the next, the women and men shedding their blood on the streets of Egypt are making a statement. Rejecting new faces from old and new parties–even the squishy teddy-bear figure of Mohammed Morsi–they are saying, “We will not be governed!”

In the context of recent political and social events in both global “South” and “North,” together with changes in social technology, the uncompromising Egyptian protestor personifies the 21st-Century’s attitude towards politics. The ongoing Revolution has meant more suffering for millions, but Egypt’s pain may be “The Future’s” gain.

In North and South alike as faith in electoral democracy shrinks, an ancient idea, direct democracy, is rekindled. It is seen as a way to promote representativeness of deliberative bodies while curbing corruption or the influence of special interests. From Egypt to Germany to Iceland to the UK and the US, ordinary people have lost trust in professional politicians and are demanding participation in decisions, not specific policy changes.

In the South

Iraq has shown Egyptians (and the world) not only that European republicanism (voting for a select group to rule over others) will not easily take root in a different soil, but also an old wisdom that republicanism is not easily compatible with equality or minority rights. Tunisians are not satisfied with winner-takes-all republicanism, while Bahrainies are demanding minority participation, not mere protection, and Libyans continue to struggle under 19th-century European ideas about government.

Meanwhile the Syrian opposition, in the face of extreme atrocities, adamantly refuses regime concession short of self-governance. It has rebuffed the advice of both European Union and United States to compromise with the regime, and continues to reject the old way of doing things.

In the North

People in well-off, stable countries are also rejecting rule by an elite.
The Occupy Movement, was invited to join the political mainstream or make “realistic” demands. The Democratic Party sought its favor, while New York judges protected it for a long time from an otherwise omnipotent police force. Oakland’s mayor held police away from Occupy Oakland for weeks. But in New York, Oakland, London, “Occupiers” declined compromise.
In Germany, the Pirate Party has run a platform at first derided as the idealism of University youth or the luxury of European long vacations, but now seems to have some staying power. Though not quite influential, the Party remains relevant with its platform based entirely on the concept of participatory democracy through technology, and it has inspired pirate parties elsewhere.

Starting in Porto Alegre over a decade ago, and now in a slowly growing number of cities and some Chicago and New York City districts, budgets are being negotiated by “Citizen Juries.” The justification for this are studies that indicate people set better priorities and accept the consequences of harder choices when they themselves deliberate about issues they face.

A new United Kingdom party, “Ordinary People” would take this to another level, calls for a complete overhaul of the British political system to be replaced by a “demarchy,” a democracy based entirely on (different forms of) selection by lot (sortition) in each branch of government. It would replace Parliament with randomly selected assemblies rotated every three months. It would replace the Prime Minister, with a collective Executive Council selected from Ministers. This bold idea is an old one, ultimately derived from ancient Athens.

According to American philosopher of law Roscoe Pound, it is during periods of major change that legal and political culture open up to philosophy and to re-evaluating their ideals. That could be happening, not only in countries in revolution, but also in growing currents in Germany, Iceland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The popularity of Aaron Swartz and outrage at his treatment by Federal prosecutors further echoed the sentiment, that access to knowledge, information, and technology is now viewed as a right rather than a privilege.

In a new book, “The Future,” heavily borrowing from the ideas of Tom Atlee, Al Gore argues that technology and interconnectedness are changing how we live and think–perhaps what it means to be human. He references a new kind of collective intelligence, GlobalMind, equivalent to Atlee’s concept of co-intelligence.

In Egypt, application of such ideas could have saved the time and money wasted on elections, while avoiding factionalism. The impasse between the Muslim Brotherhood and the National Salvation Front (Egyptian opposition) that started several months ago could have been avoided with a simple structural reform, that would have both gratified Egyptians’ thirst for participation and established a government inclusive of minority voices.

Indeed the untiring Egyptian protester could be voicing the 21st Century’s Zeitgeist

“We can do it ourselves; we can do it better!”

[Disclaimer: This expresses my own “sense of the times.” I make no claim to special knowledge of events in Egypt and the Middle East, or what many are enduring on a daily basis.]